Dragon Universe Wiki talk:Canon
Canonicity Tier Structure Okay. As currently constructed, Dragon Ball Super has far too many contradictions with Dragon Ball Z: God and God & Dragon Ball Z: Revival of 'F'. While both the canonical films and the Super anime were stated to be continuations of the manga by Akira Toriyama, it's quite clear that due to their increasing amount of contradictions with each other, we have to choose between the canon movies and Super as the main story when it's all said and done. For instance, in the scenario in which we proceed with the eventual creation of the canon timeline, we can't have both interpretations of events present when they severely contradict each other like the Super anime and the canonical films do. I would assume we would choose the canon movies due to them having most of Toriyama's involvement, whereas the retelling of the canon movies in Super do not. However, the current canonicity tier structure does not reflect this, therefore, I propose an update to it, in regards to the Super anime and the canonical films. ^This right here is my proposal to add more specification to the timeline, and to establish the pecking order of the series in the tier structure in regards to the Super anime and the canonical films. Do note that this does not classify any part of Super as non-canon, nor do I propose to move Super to the non-canon header (and I maintain that, unless Toriyama says otherwise). This merely shows that the canon movies supersede the retelling of the films in Super within the canon universe, based on Toriyama having a more prominent role in decision making with the movies than the anime. I also propose to add another note to the canon article detailing why the canonical films trump the retelling of said films in the Super anime. Feel free to add suggestions, or oppose altogether if you have a better idea on how we handle the telling of events between the first two arcs of Super and the canon movies. 03:34, November 29, 2015 (UTC) :Bump. 08:09, November 29, 2015 (UTC) :::Looks like scrolling through the Wikia activity has its merits. Yes, I'm all for this Windy. A bit of reconstruction in the wake of the hurricane known as Dragon Ball Super is a welcome plan of action. And this makes the most sense; due to Toriyama's higher involvement in the movies, they would naturally supercede the God and God and RoF events of Super, ''while still maintaining canonicity due to the fact that Toriyama continues to slap 'continuation' onto these kinds of things. Are these any objections or counterpoints from anyone else?—Mina Țepeș 09:22, November 29, 2015 (UTC) ::::I may or may not need help in writing the note though ^^ 21:58, November 29, 2015 (UTC) :If they has less contracdition, we only cover only one (movie version), and note the differences in gerneral article and every single episode. Otherwise, we keep all with the current tabber system like we did. As my thought, they're both canon, at least with our collected information, and can be biased by any person's perspective. The current tabber usage is fine to me, unless I say it's little lengthy but actually brilliant, and now you intend to replace it? --— [[User:Sulina|The Tragedy'' of L'']] 03:39, November 30, 2015 (UTC) ::This has nothing to do with the tabber system, though. Like, at all. 04:47, November 30, 2015 (UTC) :::We don't consider the Super first two arcs as primary source, but secondary like the Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z anime and we keep including them in the canon section. What's the difference? --— [[User:Sulina|''The Tragedy of L'']] 04:51, November 30, 2015 (UTC) ::::Just because it isn't in the primary source does not mean it's automatically non-canon. The databooks aren't non-canon simply because they're a secondary source. Super is in the "canon" section because Toriyama stated that it was a "continuation" of his manga. Putting Super in the non-canon section is not an option, because that goes against what Toriyama says. Not documenting Super at all in articles in favor of the movies isn't an option either, because that contradicts the wiki's purpose. Therefore, this has nothing to do with the tabber system. That isn't changing. ::::The canonicity tier structure establishes the pecking order of source information. For instance, if the Super anime and the movies have contradicting facts, based on the tier structure, we choose what the movie says, based on them having more involvement and decision making from Toriyama. Same with the timeline. If we have to choose between the Super version of events or the movies, we pick the movies. It's simple. 05:02, November 30, 2015 (UTC) :::::Remember we got rid of the contracdiction between anime adapation and manga? (Of course, we don't count the anime filler here), and so where it should be, Non-canon section? It still can't make sense, unless proving the differences between Movies 18, 19 and the anime counterparts to "''more canon" than the ones between manga and Dragon Ball, Z'' anime. If it does, keeping the tabber is fine. I wasn't say that we put ''Super first two arcs contents into non-canon section, but don't know where to put them likewise.--— [[User:Sulina|''The Tragedy'' of L'']] 05:26, November 30, 2015 (UTC) Yes, to bluntly state it, the movies are "more canon" than Super. Super and the movies are not on the same level of canon. And Super can't go anywhere else that it is now in articles. And again, this discussion about the tabbers is '''off-topic. I'm simply proposing to update the canonicity tier structure, not to debate about Super's location in the tabber system or the use of said system. 05:37, November 30, 2015 (UTC) :If you think I've redirected elsewhere, I'm truly feeling lost. The new update of tier structure is fine to me without difficulty if we don't count the consequence. I'm talking about the consequence.--— [[User:Sulina|'''''The Tragedy of L'']] 05:54, November 30, 2015 (UTC) ::Okay, Sulina. If you have any questions regarding the tabbers, Super, or the "consequence", please do direct it to my talkpage. ::With that out of the way, to the guys who have yet to speak, yay or nay for the update on the tier structure due to the events in Super? If nay, please provide an explanation and any alternative solution you have to try and resolve this conflict of events, if you may. 05:59, November 30, 2015 (UTC) My take on the canon tiers, DBS > Movies 18 & 19. Reasoning: New material takes priority over the old one, just like how in storytelling Retcon > Pre-retcon (e.g: Shukaku being a Biju > Being the spirit of an old priest). Moreover, if we are going to put DBS a bit lower in the canon tier, we should do it with DBS as a whole and not specifically on the first 2 arcs of the show (i dont see right considering one part of the show higher than the other)--[[User Talk:Lulcielid|最強の戦士 Lulcy']] 00:43, December 1, 2015 (UTC) :Greatly appreciated, Lulcy. : ''My take on the canon tiers, DBS > Movies 18 & 19. Reasoning: New material takes priority over the old one, just like how in storytelling Retcon > Pre-retcon (e.g: Shukaku being a Biju > Being the spirit of an old priest). :Unfortunately, it's not that simple (at least, not in this case). That would be the case if Toriyama was the one personally making the changes to the events of G&G and RoF in Super. However, he's not, and the movies are being retconned in Super in by someone else (Toei). Toriyama had heavy involvement in the G&G and RoF movies were flat-out fully written by Toriyama (G&G to a lesser extent), but little involvement in the first two arcs of Super, which are currently being written by someone else. :Yes, Toriyama did call them both continuations of the manga, but he had more involvement in one version than the other. And more involvement = more decision-making, and shouldn't the author's decisions on how to tell the story trump anyone else's, including the anime company? Because putting Super over the movies suggests otherwise. : Moreover, if we are going to put DBS a bit lower in the canon tier, we should do it with DBS as a whole and not specifically on the first 2 arcs of the show (i dont see right considering one part of the show higher than the other) :I understand it does look weird and "picky and choosy". And I wouldn't totally oppose grouping all of Super together. However, my only concern with that method is that it was stated in Kanzenshuu that after the G&G and RoF arcs in Super, the Universe 6/Champa Arc that comes after is Toriyama's "original" story. :All of the titles that are considered to be in the primary source of the tier structure are all Toriyama's original stories (the manga, G&G, RoF, Jaco, Minus), hence why I separated Super, because the first two arcs of Super are not Toriyama's original stories; they're adaptations of his original stories produced by Toei, just like the Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z anime, hence why it's part of the secondary source as well. 01:29, December 1, 2015 (UTC) ::Updated the proposal. 20:03, December 1, 2015 (UTC) ::::I can understand the logic behind all of that, myself. And while I get your concerns, Lulcy, the retcons you named were also retcons by the original author themselves. Kishi was the one who altered the story of Shukaku from being a sand spirit to a biju (and then proceeded to merge both backstories because he's a bloody genius who actually remembers his own story). ::::Your comparison of the first two arcs of the Super anime being an adaptation of the movies in the same way that the anime is an adaptation to the manga, Windy, is not only accurate, but the strongest reason to regarding where we place the first two arcs of Super on the "tier" of canonicity. But yes, the primary source of the tier structure are all Toriyama's own original pieces of work, and I don't see any reason why that should be changed now, simply because Toei is, for a lack of a better phrase, "at it again". As before, I am in full support.—Mina Țepeș 20:19, December 1, 2015 (UTC) ::::::Also, in regards to this, where exactly do we place the manga? Since the manga itself seems closer in some respects to the movies than the Super anime does?—Mina Țepeș 20:19, December 1, 2015 (UTC) Good question. The Super manga is a spinoff though, just like the RoF manga is... I think we would pretty much predominately take the Super anime (and RoF) itself over their spinoff manga counterparts. If you want me to add it though, I'll try. Any ideas? 20:42, December 1, 2015 (UTC) I agree and support the update of the canonicity tier structure. The movies, God and God and RoF, were written by Toriyama himself as well as had his involvement and as a result, should be placed higher on the canonicity tier than the first two Dragon Ball Super anime arcs (which did not have Toriyama's involvement). Blaze Edits and talks 19:06, December 2, 2015 (UTC) : Hmmm...no, I actually agree, it is a spin-off, so we'll continue to treat it as we have. But if we're gonna treat it as a spin-off, should we continue to document it in on the official character articles? I'm not against it, merely a query.—Mina Țepeș 19:42, December 2, 2015 (UTC) ::Well, I did say "I think" in my previous response, so I'm not entirely sure. And now, I'm not sure it's as simple as the Super anime over taking the Super manga simply because, they have their differences and inconsistencies as well. ::In regards to removing them off character pages, I'm not sold on that, because we've been updating articles (like the Super Dragon Ball and Tights) based on the Super manga. If we remove what's stated in the Super manga from articles on one account, we might as well do so on others too. ::Now, back to the canonicity tier structure, I think that "the Champa Arc of Dragon Ball Super" as stated in the primary source section should be ambiguous enough to cover the Super manga and the Super anime. The Super manga is not an adaptation of the Super anime, because the anime is far behind the manga, nor is it the other way around, again, because differences. ::You could argue that both the Super anime (by Toei) and manga (by Toyotarō) are simply representations of Toriyama's original story of the Universe 6/Champa Arc. I'm sure he has a voice in both representations. But when the Super anime does get to where the manga is, I can understand why it would overtake the manga adaptation. But again, I think keeping it ambiguous (i.e. the way it is now) is the best choice, currently. 19:59, December 2, 2015 (UTC) Ok, so before I begin, just letting you all know that I'm not across Dragon Ball news as most of you guys here, so please excuse my ignorance to any news I don't mention here. Also, I have a lot to say so what I'm about to write might be a little messy here, so bare with me. I was asked for an opinion, so based on what I know, here it is: Now first of all, as stated by others before; G&G and ROF scripts were both personally written by Toriyama himself. To my knowledge, the only confirmed involvement Toriyama has in Super is 'story concepts' and character designs. I think most of us agree that unless super is a retcon, the movies trump Super (anime and manga). In my opinion, unless stated so, or that we have sufficient evidence to suggest that it is indeed a retcon, I think we should treat the G&G & ROF stuff in Super simply as an adaptation. We all know that Toei loves to make changes and take their own liberties when it comes to adaptations. I know that Toriyama had stated that when writing G&G, he had to cut a lot of stuff out due to it not fitting into the movie's run time. Now, the additional stuff in the anime could very well be that stuff that was cut, but as of right now we have no proof of that. And we have no proof that any of the changes were made or approved by Toriyama. Now, as for which is more canon out of the super anime and manga, I'd say it's too early to tell. Right at this moment, I consider them both adaptations of Toriyama's storyboards, drafts etc. The manga is Toyotaro's adaptation of Toriyama's work, and the anime is Toei's adaptation of the aforementioned work. Right now, it would be wrong for us to choose between the two, and say one is more canon than the other, cause we don't know if Toriyama is involved in one more than the other. However in saying that, I think it's pretty safe to assume that both adaptations will have their differences, so we are gonna have to make a decision as to which one is more canon, at some point. I'd say wait until Champa/Universe 6 arc has started in the anime, then decide based on the content of each adaptation, unless we get new information (about Toriyama's involvement with either one). When that time comes, we will decide based on: *which one's less contradictory towards the movies and manga *whether or not either the anime or the manga, reference anime-only events from G&G and ROF super adaptations (or the changes made) *whether or not the anime has relevant scenes/information not present in the manga (given the manga has a 20-page limit per chapter, we have to consider the possibility of less relevant information being cut out or shortened. I mean, it did happen with the G&G in the super manga adaptation) So to summarize, basically G&G and ROF movies over super (anime and manga), and wait til the anime reaches Champa/Universe 6 arc before deciding whether which out of the manga or anime is more canon (unless we get more information). So there, as requested, I provided my opinion. You can either take my opinion or leave it. I hope it was of value and helpful and that we can settle this matter in time.--DuelMaster93 (talk) 10:25, December 3, 2015 (UTC) :^I'll gladly take it. Thank you. I pretty much 100% agree with your statement. 13:13, December 3, 2015 (UTC) :: I haven't read much of this conversation and am pressed for time, so I will be brief and please forgive me if I am rehashing some arguments already in this thread. It is my opinion, as it has always been, that the movies trump Super. Why? Toriyama wrote them himself. He personally said that he wrote the scripts for both new movies, even though he wasn't originally supposed to. That being said, Toriyama wrote the plot for the Beerus and Freeza arcs of Super, allowing the anime company to fill in the gaps while he personally focused on the Champa arc. That means that the anime team is simply interpreting Toriyama's plot for the first two arcs and that Toriyama himself is personally responsible for the Champa arc, like he was from the movies. What we can infer from this is that the anime versions of the Beerus and Freeza arcs are similar to an anime adaptation of a manga: they're not completely non-canon, but scenes which contradict the source material (the movies) should be treated as non-canon. Therefore, I agree with Windy's initial suggestion — the God and God arc and the Revival of "F" arc should be treated as a secondary source, the movies a primary source, and then, starting with the Champa arc, Super gains primary source status. ~ ' 04:35, December 4, 2015 (UTC) :::Updated the tier structure. 19:27, December 4, 2015 (UTC) The grammar of "canon" I must say, as a grammar and language enthusiast, I'd really like to see this page get a grammatically-accurate update to reflect proper usage of the word "canon." The last two paragraphs in the TVTropes "Canon" page's breakdown explain the correct usage perfectly and succinctly, which can be found here: http://tvtropes.org/main/canon Copy and pasted, the paragraphs read as follows: --- It must be noted that "canon" is a term misused even more often than the notorious "egregious," as seen in the page quote. {EBsessed notes: the page quote is, "Warning: The game you are about to play is canon." sic — Barkley, Shut Up and Jam: Gaiden} Many people mistakenly use "canon" when they mean "canonical" (if using it as an adjective) or "canonicity" (if using it as a collective noun), and "non-canon" when they mean "non-canonical." "Canon" is a singular noun that refers to the official story of a work (typically according to the writers of said work) and must come after a singular specifying article (such as "the" or "a") or must have an "s" applied to the end of the word when referring to more than one individual canon. "Canonicity" is the collective noun form and is the correct word to use when referring to the idea of canonical or non-canonical things in general and should be used any time you want to use the word "canon" without preceding it with a singular specifying article. "Canonical" is the adjective form describing something that is or isn't part of the canon in question. The correct terminology can be most easily exhibited with these three sentences: "Let's discuss canonicity. Because this particular detail is canonical, it fits within established canonicity and therefore is part of the official canon. However, because this other conflicting detail does not fit into canonicity, it's clearly non-canonical and does not belong in the canon." If you're still confused, a simple way to remember how to use these words is to compare "canon" to "continuation," "canonical" to "continual," and "canonicity" to "continuity." --- In the name of upholding an educated and intellectual image on this wiki and giving proper respect to its very well thought-out rules regarding canonicity, I strongly motion that the page be updated with proper grammar for all uses of the word "canon" so as to be more comprehensive, professional, and encyclopedic. EBsessed (talk) 22:58, October 29, 2016 (UTC) ::I shall alert the Bureaucrats for their input. --[[User:New World God|''NWG'']] 12:22, October 30, 2016 (UTC) :::Ten is an English major; I will leave processing this information and giving a verdict about it to him, not myself. I've already brought it to his attention.—Mina Țepeș 16:59, October 30, 2016 (UTC)